« What Did This Man’s Girlfriend Hit Him With? | Main | “Don’t Come in My Ear” »

In Canada, Shitfaced = Consent

shirt_teabag.jpgA Canadian judge ruled this week that a 19-year-old man was not guilty of rape because the 14-year-old girl he plied with beer and liquor didn’t say no. In fact, the judge reasoned, accepting the alcohol was tantamount to consent.


“The accused’s lewd comments towards her did not compel her to leave,” the judge said. “The complainant was not forced to consume alcohol — she drank … beer willingly and then switched to alcohol. It is not at all clear why she drank so heavily.”

The reasoning behind her decision to drink heavily reallyshouldn’t have any bearing on whether there was consent. Consent to drink does not equal consent to have sex.

Of course, the judge didn’t let the guy off scott free. He was found guilty of sexual assault, not for raping the girl, but “for placing his genitals on the girl’s face after she passed out — an act the offender captured on his cellphone camera and showed to co-workers.”

Where’s the logic? The 14-year-old girl willingly drank, therefore she willingly passed out, so by the judge’s logic, she willingly allowed him to place his testicles on her face. Right?


| Comments (9)


Things like this make me embarrassed to be a Canadian. It's fucking sick.

With this story and that dumbass Quebec judge overturned a parent's decision to ground their daughter, I have very little respect for the Canadian judiciary.

Couldn't they have gotten the guy on statutory rape? What's the age of consent in Canada?

The judge's reasoning is pretty clear; he doesn't want to criminalize raping drunk women because he thinks they're getting what they deserve, but he does want to punish guys for being jerks and publishing pictures of their escapades to other parties. If only he'd been a gentlemen and kept the fact that he raped her, and the pictures he took of himself tea-bagging her, to himself like they did in the good old days :/

Seriously, there's so much messed up with this judge's logic, I just don't know where to start.

Amen, Superfish. Stupid judge..."It is not at all clear why she drank so heavily," huh? Well, perhaps it's because she was a fucking child at the time who didn't know better, genius.

Amanda, until recently the age of consent here was 14, but I think I heard that it was upped to 16.

Is it possible to appeal this type of decision in Canada? Or even in the U.S., for that matter?

Uhhh, not to throw cold water on this one, but the word on the street in Calgary (where Judge Peter MacIntyre decided this case) was that there was absolutely no proof of a lack of consent, so MacIntyre nailed the guy with what he could actually prove. That rape is a problematic part of criminal law is absolutely no question, but judges do actually have to stick to the law when they are deciding rape cases.

"she drank … beer willingly and then switched to alcohol."

So, is beer not considered an alcoholic beverage in Canada?

First, yes the guy's a douchebag, but we still have this little thing about evidence and presumption of innocence up here in the ole True North Strong and Free, so in the absence of a direct witness testifying as to drunken sex sans consent (or another incriminating cellphone recording) the judge - probably unwillingly, McIntyre's a bit of a stiff - did what he had to do.

Also as of the time of the incident, the age of consent in Canada was 14. The Feds have proposed raising it to 16 but I'm not sure if it has actually been passed yet.

Also, Canada's still a relatively small country, population-wise. There're not going to be a whole lot of places he can go that this won't follow him.